The word is out that “Republicans on the House Intelligence
Committee have completed a draft report concluding there was no collusion or
coordination between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia,” and that
“challenges an assessment made after the 2016 election that Russian meddling
was an effort to help Trump.” [1]
The report will agree, however, “that Russians did meddle in the election” and “will
also show a pattern of Russian attacks on European allies….” The announcement
was made by Texas Representative Mike Conaway, who led the investigation for
the committee.
Naturally, President Trump is crowing about this outcome,
tweeting “in excited capital letters: ‘THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAS,
AFTER A 14 MONTH LONG IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION, FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION OR
COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA TO INFLUENCE THE 2016
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.’
Representative Mike Conaway |
The opposition party, of course, has another view.
“Democrats have criticized Republicans on the committee for
shortening the investigation, pointing to multiple contacts between Trump’s
campaign and Russia and saying they have seen far too few witnesses to make any
judgment on collusion. The Democrats and Republicans have openly fought
throughout the investigation, with Democrats suggesting a cover-up for a
Republican president and one GOP member of the panel calling the probe ‘poison’
for the previously bipartisan panel.
“The top Democrat on the intelligence panel, California Rep.
Adam Schiff, suggested that by wrapping up the probe the Republicans were
protecting Trump. He called the development a ‘tragic milestone’ and said
history would judge them harshly.
“Republicans ‘proved unwilling to subpoena documents like
phone records, text messages, bank records and other key records so that we
might determine the truth about the most significant attack on our democratic
institutions in history,’ Schiff said.”
It is possible for different people to look at the same
evidence and honestly come to different conclusions. But what is the likelihood
that honest evaluations of the same facts would differ coextensively with
partisan affiliations?
Representative Adam Schiff |
One would be justified in concluding that the illustrious
members of our political class are making their “evaluations” based on their
perceptions on how the facts will impact the electoral chances of their
respective political parties. The same tendency among the partisans of the
American citizenry is also to be discerned. In other words, facts don’t matter;
the power wielded by political parties matter.
The problem with that approach is that facts have a causal
connection with other facts. If there was no collusion between the Russian
government and the Trump campaign, or if there was no attempt on the part of
Russia to influence the election, then a grossly unjustifiable wedge has been
has been driven between the United States government and a significant portion
of the American people. But if there was
collusion, a foreign government is now participating in our governance; and if the
Russians tried to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump, then our
democratic processes have been shown to have a decided vulnerability to foreign
disinformation efforts.
With stakes like this, we need leadership that is able to
assess the facts objectively. But we can’t have leadership like that because
political party loyalty takes priority. And here is the time to quote George
Washington:
“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in
the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical
discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the
most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party
generally.
“This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature,
having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under
different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or
repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness
and is truly their worst enemy.
George Washington |
“The alternate domination of one faction over another,
sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in
different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is
itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and
permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline
the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an
individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able
or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes
of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
“Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which
nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual
mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and
duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
“It serves always to distract the public councils and
enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-rounded
jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another;
foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign
influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government
itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of
one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.” [2]
It cannot be denied that Washington’s concerns have been largely
realized; and if we aren’t careful, the despotism he warned about will come to
pass. A potential danger to the Republic such as was being investigated by the House
Intelligence Committee deserves a better response than partisan wrangling. We
need to get a handle on this, and reduce the influence of political parties on
government operations as much as possible.